The Long March of Newt Gingrich

Dear FRONTLINE,
Your Frontline program about Newt Gingrich looked like an attempt to to write his
political obituray. Sorry PBS, but your liberal slip is showing. I have been an an
admirer of Frontline for many years and this is the first time I viewed a program
written and edited with such anger. Are you mad because Newt has questioned the
Federal support of PBS? When 17% of my federal taxes are paying interest on the
national debt, everything is on the table, including funding for PBS.
S.H.
Eugene, Oregon

Dear FRONTLINE,
Very much enjoyed your presentation on Newt Gingrich.
You made him out to be a major opportunist; manipulating
ideologies and people both in political and personal life
to attain his ends. I regret you did not interview Big
Newt and his sisters and children from the first marriage
about Newt and family values. It is so common that many
politicians preach about family values only to have their
own personal lives invalidate such sentiments.
I.D.

Dear FrontLine:
The biography on Newt Gingrich which aired Jan. 16th was
very disappointing. The show was completely slanted in a
negative way. There was no mention of the many positve
contributions that Mr. Gingrich has accomplished. All of
the people who were interview were presented as close friends
of Newt's however, none of these people had anything nice to
say about him. Was it impossible to interview his current
campaign manager or one of his current staff members? The
conclusion that the viewer was lead to was that Mr. Gingrich
is guilty of illegal actions and unethical behavior whose
future is uncertain. In the future I would like to see a
more balanced program instead of the misleading program
which was presented.
S.O.
Perkiomenville, Pa.

Dear FRONTLINE,
I viewed Frontline tonight and am glad that the program further exposed the
dishonest and currupt nature of Newt Gingrich. I had read or heard of many of the
things reported on the show, but I didn't know of the deep and long held nature of
his dangerous ideas. I am glad that PBS has the 'guts' to produce and show a
program of this type, especially since one of The Speaker's aims has been to see
that services such as PBS are either closed down or made to follow some right-wing
party line. I hope PBS will stand firm against such blackmail and continue to
produce and show programs that give a more truthful view of today's issues.
T.A.

Dear FRONTLINE,
The Frontline episode that aired last night about Newt Gingrich was a smear. While
I do not personally care for the Speaker, nor for many of his policies, the program
was terribly unbalanced from start to finish.
Why, for example, is it relevant to mention that he didn't have a date to the
high-school prom? Who cares? It comes across as simply nasty and personal, and
certainly not important for us to know in understanding the man.
Why describe his mind as "flypaper?" Most of us have experienced things that have
made an impression on us. Does that make all our minds like flypaper? A very
unflattering choice of words. Is he a pitbull, or is he a bulldog? The former has
a far nastier connotation than the latter. That Frontline consistently chose
negative words made it obvious that this program was more a diatribe than an
objective report.
The language in the broadcast made obvious the producers' and writers' personal
distaste for the Speaker. That's not journalism; it's opinion. The program
pretended to be an objective look at Mr. Gingrich; it was really an expression of
their opinions.
Especially revealing was the exchange between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. O'Neill. We saw
Mr. Oneill waxing indignant about Mr. Gingrich's tactics, with not so much as a
cursory mention of the incontrovertible fact that the Democratic leadership was
corrupt to the core. No mention of how the Democrats abused their leadership over
the years, at the expense of House Republicans. Tip O'Neill as a righteous accuser
- please. Wasn't it he who instructed the TV cameras to pan across an empty House
when a congressman was speaking? Who is he to complain?
Say what you will about Mr. Gingrich, he conducted a tough fight as leader of the
loyal opposition. Politics is a tough business, and the Speaker won his job fair
and square. Whether one likes his Contract with America, at least he did what he
said - which is, er, unusual in politics these days, no? It was clearly time for a
change of leadership in the House, and if Mr. Gingrich doesn't deliver on his
promises, the voters can tell him and his colleagues so, every two years.
Frontline would do well to label its opinions as opinions, and not as fair and
objective reporting.
J.B.
Santa Cruz, California

Dear FRONTLINE,
Just saw your special on Newt and so must everyone else.
I have not been able to get on the internet until now,
although I have been trying since the show went off.
I think that you did an excellent job on the history of Newt.
I only wish that others watching could have the same historicla
perspective that I have. My minor was history. In particular,
the history of the founding fathers. If there is one
thing that Jefferson taught us, from his own writings, is
that power does change a person's perspective. And so with
Newt. I only with that the Rush's of the world could see
your story with a sense of history. Congratulations on a story
well done. I realize that some conservatives
may not share this view and will characterize your
story as "liberal hogwash". However, I believe
that your story has given me a better understanding of
the man and his quest for a place in history. It is always
beneficial to understand a politicians motivations, even if
he/she doesn't.

Dear FRONTLINE,
I was very disappointed with your one sided newt segment. It's very important to
present a balanced viewpoint. There is complexity in everyone's personality and
you could present similar contradictions in many of our best leaders both past and
present. More importantly, has Newt touched an important middle class nerve? YES. I
believe Newt's is doing more good than bad. It is obvious he is not the typical
politican pandering to the latest weekly public opinion poll. My wife and I now
vote republican because of Newt's ideas and John Kasich's energy. We are in our
30's and 40's and consider ourselves liberal on many issues. keep it up Newt!
N.K.
Seattle, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,
I had the pleasure of catching your Newt special
last night on Frontline - it made me realize just how great
this nation really is. A free press is perhaps our most
important freedom, though one might argue that the need for
any public funding for press organs such as yours is being
eviscerated by the proliferation of new media channels.
I expected to see a hatchet job on Newt, and my
expectations were fully met. You folks really did a great
job of digging up all available dirt on Newt (the bizarre
tirade by the book protester about oral sex and the
bookjacket swastika photo were each particularly
enlightening) and tying it together into one fairly
coherent whole.
But the failure of your program, and by
analogy the failure of contemporary liberalism, was
revealed at the end of the "documentary." If liberals want
to reopen their booth in the marketplace of ideas, they
must first realize that the conservative revolution is
built on IDEAS, not on Newt Gingrich. While Newt is
certainly a great communicator of our ideas (the best since
Ronald Reagan), the ideas themselves are much more powerful
than one man or one political party. Your attempt to link
the '96 elections to Newt at the close of the show
indicates that you just don't get it.
I look forward to similar treatment of the Clintons'
"long march" to power in Arkansas. Will Frontline dig deep
into the cesspool of Arkansas-style political and sexual
sleaze? I won't be holding my breath.
Martin Luther King put it well: "Let Freedom Ring!"
>From every molehill in Mississippi to every webpage in
cyberspace, let freedom ring! I'm proud to live in a nation
that will not only permit but will indeed FUND your hatchet
piece on Newt. Let Freedom Ring!
W.K.
Atlanta, GA

Dear FRONTLINE,
I was disappointed in your Frontline story on Newt Gingrich. I thought it was
extremely negative. He's been called a true futurist, a visionary by many. None
of this was brought out--just that he's a revolutionary. Most of the pictures of
him were unflattering also. Maybe you'll do a positive story after the 1996
election.
N.C.N.
Willingboro, NJ

Dear FRONTLINE,
I found your program The Long March of Newt Gingrich very
fascinating. I, like most Americans, do not find the time
to really get to know our elected officials. This is
eminently true when I feel that I have no control
(electoral) in getting most politicians into power (or out
of power). I rely on television and the printed media to
inform me of the continual ebbs and flows of politics in our
country. I know this is inadequate on my part since I know,
first hand, that the news media (printed anyway), typically
reports events as they see them and not as they really are.
Therefore, for that reason I took your program with a grain
of salt." I could see how you surveyed Speaker Gingrich
with your liberal eye-view. However, even after that
bitter salty taste wore off and your liberal slant was
aligned, I was left feeling sick and frightened by our
future with a man such as our current Mr. Speaker holding
power. Your words hinting at his Hitler-like speeches, his
soulless disregard for his own family values, his tumultuous
swings in loyalty, his McCarthy-like accusations, etc. all
produced the desired effect on me. Even your Mao-ist
title helped your cause!
W.B.

Dear FRONTLINE,
What a sham! I caught a portion of the Newt Gingrich program
and found it to be a real slammer! Inasmuch as Mr. Newt does
have some baggage, as we all do, the piece was quite skillfully
concocted as to convey an overall negative tone. This I believe
was a conscious effort and an attempt to "Pay back" those who
would seek to defund PBS.
Personally, I agree with the latter notion, that is to defund
PBS. I do find that certain programming PBS generates is superlative
in content and execution, unfortunately too much is blantantly extreme in
its liberal tone i.e. homosexuality, AIDS, attacking conservatives.
Seek your future and fortune on the plains of the free market like the rest of us
rather
than in the contrived laboratory (that is government hand-outs)at our expense.
Sincerely,
S.S.
Pittsburgh, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for showing Newt, warts and all. I hope that the self-rightous
members of the "conservative revolution" have the guts to accept that their
hero is no second coming of James Madison or Thomas Jefferson, but instead
merely a power-hungry egotist. There is a lot in the conservative movement
that I believe can be brought into American culture and will ultimately
help our nation. However, if these folks decide to hang their star on the
present Speaker of the House and the Religious Right, they may find
themselves in trouble. I also found it interesting (and revealing) that
the religious right (in the person of Ralph Reed) finds an adulterous
non-churchgoing individual such as Newt more acceptable to them than a
thoughtful, strong family man such as Colin Powell. Thanks for uncovering
their hypocrisy. Keep up the good work.
R.M.

Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline is probably the best documentary television
show in America -- its attention to detail is unsupassed,
and its unyielding force applied to objectivity unmatched.
What happened the other night?
I don't like Newt Gingrich personally, because he represents
a shallow and often bigoted view of America's ills... but
in Frontline's fine tradition, I should have come to this
conclusion on my own.
Unfortunately, the reporter/writer/producer's view was more
important than the facts -- which in the case of Newtie --
speak for themself. The biased voiceover was distracting,
subjective, and self-aggrandizing -- everything Frontline is
not.
Don't skimp on the editing -- keep up the good work!!!
Best regards,
Robert C. Palmer
Wayne, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,
First, let me commend you on a wonderfully
informative program on the Speaker of the House. It went
the distance to show that Newt Gingrich is following no one
but himself. The problem that I see with government today
is that the elected officials have forgotten what their job
is: to represent the people. They are not in office to
further their own personal agenda, but to do what is in the
best interests of their constituency. Speaker Gingrich is
a perfect example of a man following his own agenda. The
disgrace, however, is that he has convinced so many others
to follow him.
Mr. Gingrich calls himself a revolutionary. As a
student of history, he should know that revolutionaries have
almost consistently been dictatorial, autocratic and even
tyrannical. This is not what we need in a democracy.
Sincerely,
Lee A. Lewis
lewis81@potsdam.edu

Dear FRONTLINE,
While I am not a Newt fan, I found your one sided slamming of him
to be distastful. Have we gotten to the point where a fair portrayal of
our political leaders is impossible for todays reporters? I belive this story
reflected more negatively on Frontline than the Speaker.
R. Stroud

Dear FRONTLINE,
I just finished viewing your program. Simply breathless! The hypocrisy of
Mr. Gingrich never ceases to amaze me. I didn't think anyone in Journalism
had the courage to speak the truth anymore. Then again, if PBS didn't, who
would, right? Besides Frontline, the only other source where such
information was revealed was by Robert Scheer; then again, it was relegated
to the "Op-Ed" pages.
Thank you once again for having the courage and integrity to report the truth.
Jimmy Shaw
Irvine, California

Dear FRONTLINE,
Your show about Newt Gingrich was the most partisan piece
of journalism I've ever witnessed on televsion. Just how
much money did the Democratic National Committee give you
to trash Mr. Gingrich? You owe Gingrich an hour's worth of
rebutal time. I also wonder just what influence Gingrich and
the Republican's budget cut of funds to PBS had on the show's
producers!
R.L. Snyder

Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for another well-produced, thought provoking piece.
I would not count myself among Newt Gingrich's supporters,
but I enjoyed the chance to hear more about where he comes
from and how his persona has developed. I appreciate the
relatively unbiased (IMO) perspective you took because I
can trust the information more than most "news" on Newt. I
wish I could have sat down with a discussion group after
the show to talk about the various thoughts that came to
mind. Perhaps that's an idea you've considered already?
Thanks again for your excellent offerings!
Jon Schindler

Dear FRONTLINE,
I always enjoy watching the high quality of "documentary style" programs on
Frontline. I was however very disappointed in the January 16, 1996 program
regarding Newt Gingrich.
I have never seen such a biased and slanted piece of reporting. It was
unbelievable. Did the reporter say one good thing about Mr. Gingrich? The
movie clips that were scattered throughout the show also made Mr. Gingrich
appear to be a wimp.
I feel that this is a classic example of the elite liberal media attempting
to embarass a leader in the republican party. I understand if the reporter
had differences with Mr. Gingrich and his "Contract With America," but to
make personal attacks on the man without him having any rebuttal is
ridiculous.
You should be embarassed and ashamed of your lame attempt to smear Mr.
Gingrich.
R.C.F.
Beaverton, Oregon

Dear FRONTLINE,
Finally, some objective history about the man who seems
to believe that his every breath is an historic event.
Unfortunately, a local windstorm knocked out my local
pbs station about 3/4 through, so I'm hoping for an encore
performance.
Even handed, informative, factual, fascinating. Thank
you very much for a job well done.
Janis Goodall
ariaw@ix.netcom.com

Dear FRONTLINE,
While informative to some extent, the
program suffered from an antipathy towards
the subject, which made it, in my opinion
an unfair portrait:
1) Describing Gingrich as a "pit bull" - the term coined by his
partisan enemies - is not what I would consider
objective journalism.
2) The mountain of ethics charges against Gingrich were
mentioned. It was not mentioned that literally hundreds
of ethics charges have been launched by his enemies,
and that Gingrich has been cleared in just about every
case. Gingrich doesn't have an ethics problem; his
problem is that his very effectiveness makes
his enemies try anything to stop him or bring him down.
3) A reluctance to talk seriously about his ideas, and
instead to dwell on some childhood connections to old
movies seemed to me attempt to slight what he stands for.
Patrick McGuinness

Dear FRONTLINE,
I understand how you chose to represent Newt's life in
a negative light, however I believe it is interesting to
note that his life is in almost complete concordance with
Nietzshian philosophy. He apparently views life as a battle
-- a struggle between forces. According to Nietzsche, these
forces can be anything: two enemies, species in evolution,
or Newt and his rivals. To a Nietzshist, right and wrong
are secondary to the eternal struggle which is the machinery
of the universe. Thus, Newt will adopt any political
position regardless of his opinion, if it will get him what
he wants. It's an admirable philosophy for individual well-
being, but is obviously bad for national politics.
Jeff Abbas

Dear FRONTLINE,
The presentations about Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Limbaugh
might have been refreshing, if you weren't so completely predictable
in highlighting the things about these two men that you find so
distasteful. I think the "crack" about Mr. Gingrich having a "flypaper
brain" totally lacking luster, creativity and style. It will be refreshing when
people of your minimal production skills have to seek employment in a
marketplace. Discovery, The Learning Channel and the History Channel
are doing nicely without govermnent subsidy and handouts from "charitable"
organizations.
W.L.

Dear FRONTLINE,
An excellent over view of Newt. Well done, written and documented. I have
a course this semester dealing in politics and the media... and how each
use both. We will be looking at Nwet and the Republican party and how they
use and are used by the media. But over all, a great project. Would love
to see more like them. Keep up the good work.
Bob O'Sullivan

Dear FRONTLINE,
I enjoyed the show -- it was thorough and well done. However, one part was
clearly unfair.
I agree with Newt's claim that they missed a golden opportunity for budget
negotiations on the way to Rabin's funeral. I've flown to Israel and the
plane rides are interminable. Frontline went along with the left's
portrayal of Newt's complaints about this as pouting over a social snub.
Why? Surely you are aware of the length of that plane ride and of the
importance of the budget negotiations.
The easy answer is that you are pursuing a partisan agenda. This is the
answer that the right wing wants everyone to believe -- that is their
agenda. Consider the strategy.
Every person they can convert to a media skeptic, is a long term convert.
The right wing realizes that the next election isn't the only one. Their
goal is REALIGNMENT. They are using claims of media bias to make permanent
changes in the electorate. In politics, memories are short. One real
convert is worth more than 1,000 shouts of "Amen!"
I know Frontline is not billed as a news show and does not claim to provide
the balance of The News Hour (BY FAR the best and most balanced source of
news anywhere). But, your show still contained "Limbaugh fodder." You
have helped provide one of the key "fuels" for the right wing revolution.
Consider carefully the long and short term effects of your shows.
Realignment occurs one person at a time.
Michael Slay

Dear Frontline,
I watched your broadcast on Channel 9 in Seattle last night and must say it
was really something. If you people are trying to be the liberal counterpart
to Rush Limbaugh, you should be honest and say so. That way, at least,
people would know where you are coming from. But to put out such drivel
under the guise of a program such as Frontline, which aspires to be factual
and trustworthy, is underhanded and dishonest.
What bothered me most was the biased content of the narration and the
sneering manner in which it was delivered. It was a pitiful exhibition. But
that's not all. It is one thing to show comments by liberals such as
Patricia Schroeder and David Bonior, et al, because most of the public knows
where these people are coming from. It is a different thing to show people
who are not known to most of us. Are they political friends or enemies? Is
it possible that what they said was taken out of context? How are we to
judge?
Maybe I was more naive in my younger years and just didn't notice, but it
seems to me that most of your programming, is now biased to the liberal side.
This is unfortunate.
Sincerely,
M.L.H.
Bothell, WA

Dear FRONTLINE,
I have been a dedicated fan of WGBH - Boston for years. The many
fine masterpieces produced there are unequalled -- with the exception
of the `expose' or should I say the `hatchet job' done on the Speaker
of the House. To be sure, Newt has his faults and if I could remake
him, there is much I would change. But, the clearly partisan, whining,
hand wringing attempt to defame him in the Jan 16th program serves
only to illustrate that partisan politics has no place in a medium that
is funded in part by we the people.
If I indeed know how this program will be received by those who idolize
Newt, and given the power of the purse that they currently exercise,
I fear even more that badly needed funding for PBS will be further
curtailed. Should this prove to be the case, then whatever objectives
were at the foot of permitting this smear piece to be approved for airing
will be repaid with consequences that undoubtably were not considered
at the time.
Finally, even the most diehard liberal had to have been embarrassed
by the silly schoolgirl tone the piece took on as it rose to a
shrill, mind numbing screech toward the end. Any pretense of
objectivity the earlier portions may have suggested was lost in
this moment. Is there no editorial review of these independent
productions? Yellow journalism is too fine a judgement for it.
Still a dedicated PBS supporter, I remain respectfully yours,
J.D.
Duluth, GA

Dear FRONTLINE,
What exactly is a flypaper mind? I truly am not sure if I
would like that destinction, would you?? Would your
average viewer? Go through your office and randomly tell
25 people that they have a flypaper mind and see what the
reaction is.
I was also wondering if there will be a similar production
on Bill Clinton. Given that this an election year and that
Bill was almost unknown until 1992, it would seem appropriate.
Perhaps we will see a replay of the press confrence with Ms
Flowers, or download the letter to the ROTC officer. Or
perhaps see some interviews with his friends at the RTC and the
Whitehouse travel office. Would Kenneth Starr be available
for comment? Could we download a passenger list from the
crybaby plane ride and see exactly why it made the front
page?
If your going to paint a picture, why not paint the whole
thing. But maybe, regrettably, you think you already have.
I give you a C+ for a job half finished.
R.J. Jarbeau

Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline's feeble pretense to objectivity has hit a new low in this
malicious and cynical attack. Highlights: "his intellect and his adgenda
are guided by the highest bidder" ... "something of an intellectual fadist"
... ""ruthless romantic"..."the impetuous child with the impossibly large
sense of himself suddenly materialized"..."untethered Army brat"..."brainy
political precosity"...Of the Republican Revolution, "He has been its
strength, and is now its frailty"..."The once penniless college professor
stepped forward to grab hischance for a BIG PAYOFF. He took a $4.5 million
book advance from Rupert Murdock. BLIND TO THE CRAVEN IMAGE OF MAKING
HIMSELF RICH, WHILE CUTTING AID TO THE POOR, HE WAS SHAMED INTO GIVING THE
MILLIONS BACK."
A clip from the "Magnificent 7" is employed to imply that
a "revolutionary who has stormed the gate" must always ride into the
sunset. Very subtle. But, what of Washington, FDR, Jefferson, Jackson, or
even Reagan, who served many years before "riding off". If DNC propaganda
is permitted to be financed by NEA and taxpayer dollars, why not subsidize
and nationally broadcast the "Rush Linbaugh TV Show". At least he pretends
no objectivity. As for comments such as "Firing Line is right wing", well,
not particulary. Guests are quite often Liberal or Socialist, which leads
to more engaging discussion. Take away federal funding of PBS, and let the
marketplace decide.
J.S.

Dear FRONTLINE,
I was very disappointed at your unbalanced presentation on Newt Gingrich.
You seemed to have looked for, and found, all of the negative aspects of
his personal and professional life. Certainly more time might have been
spent on his political philosophy and what he hopes to accomplish.
G.J.K.

Dear FRONTLINE,
As a rule I enjoy viewing Frontline. This show normally
maintains a fair amount of balance and objectivity in it's
reporting. However, I must ask you, did the Democratic
National Comittee pay you to do the report that I watched
this week on the current speaker of the House? Any pretense
of objective reporting went right out the window in this
piece. I have never seen such a biased and slanted report on
Frontline before. It bordered closer to character
assasination than anything else. If you want to understand
why there are those that attack PBS for being to liberal,
take a real critical look at this piece of so called
"journalism". I wonder if you would do such an adversarial
piece on the Clintons? I doubt it. A show like that is one
of the reasons some people would like to pull the plug on
your government funding. You could take that particular show
and use it for a Democratic campaign commercial this fall.
After watching the attempted hatchet job you tried to
do on the House Speaker, I doubt that I will watch Frontline
again.
p.s. Your little slogan, "If PBS won't do it, who will?" is
the height of arrogance. There are plenty of media
outlets out there that take on any project under the
sun. PBS is not the sole bastion of courage, bravery,
and truth in America.
G.A.L.
Redding, Ca.

Dear FRONTLINE,
You really failed to highlight the degree of temerity that Gingrich
displayed in his career as a representative of Georgia's 6th congressional
district when it was drawn across South Atlanta (clayton County). I lived
there during the early to mid eighties, and frequently responded to his
editorial commentaries in the local newspapers. Gingrich makes Goebbles
look like a saint. Have you seen some of the propaganda documents Newt
circulated with his free congressional mailing privileges? I hope I still
have some for the day of Gingrich's public accounting, which should be
named "Nuremburg II".
J. Powers

Dear FRONTLINE,
Last night I watched your program 'exposing' Mr. Limbaugh. And I was
wondering, are you going to do a similar 'exposing' Bill Clinton's
half-truths and outright lies ?
Seem like your producers and staff still don't get it. The policies of
socialism and class warfare that have been embraced by the DNC are not
welcomed to the majority of the US citizens. You can label us as
mindless, but let me tell you that I speak six languages, have traveled
the world, worked in seven different countries and agree with a lot of
what Rush is saying. And I'm not white.
Insulting and demeaning people that hold opposite viewpoints have been a
long tradition of media participants that are standing to the left with
liberal political views. I couldn't believe you doing exactly that.
This isn't journalism. Be objective and imparcial if that is possible in
any program that comes from PBS stations.
Very disappointed,
D.G.
Olympia, Washington

Dear FRONTLINE,
I find myself in the absurd position for a life-long social liberal of
speaking out in defence of
Newt Gingrich.
There is a line between hard-nosed political reporting and what is so
delicately called
"advocacy journalism." In the good ol' days we used to call it plain old
"yellow journalism", or
labelled it outright propaganda.
Bluntly, the narrative portion of "Frontline" was overtly biased, to the
point of being
outrageous. Even though I generally oppose Newt's views at every turn and I
consider him
arrogant and overreaching, I found myself squirming as I listened to your
artful character
assassination, particularly since a simple recitation of the actual
historic record would have said
more than enough to prove the case.
Opinion mixes poorly with journalism. That's why there is a separate
category for editorial
views. This program should have been labelled as such. Better yet, you
should have axed the
script entirely.
The visual footage was well-edited and the talking heads managed to tell
the story quite well
without it. In short, it was as inappropriate as the laugh-track imposed on
every episode of
M*A*S*H; a condescending gesture that shows how little you think of your
audience.
Could it be that some of the overt hostility comes from Newt's statements
concerning his vision
of the future of public television? It might be wise to consider this
possibility and decide
whether you want to be a public institution - which should represent all
consumers - or a
liberal institution. If you object to the agendas of conservatives you
should not accept public
money, since you would be accepting conservative money.
Convictions that do not extend to the purse are mere opinions, and poor
ones at that.
Regards,
Bob King
Bob_King@dixie6.iceonline.com

Dear FRONTLINE,
"The Long March" was quite eye-opening as to how a man's
"friends" and family can destroy his efforts and defame
his character. The program was obviously manipulative
during this political season. I am amazed that Frontline is
so blatant in their attempt to harden people's hearts against
the changes Newt has introduced. It proves his accusation
that his opposition is willing to do anything, no matter how
dirty or deceptive, to keep things in Washington from changing.
Beth L. Kaler

Dear FRONTLINE,
This is a perfect example of two things: 1) Public money should not be used
to fund programming that is so obviously biased. Even the tone of voice of
the narrator was arrogant and dripped with sarcasm. 2) Campaign reform will
have to be handled very carefully. If private funds are limited,
Republicans will have a very difficult time in getting their message to the
American people. The media is unashamedly liberal.
If Newt's father says you either hate him or love him, please be advised
that my husband and I LOVE him!!!
M.L.E.
Roswell, Georgia